Category: UK

  • Monday 26 September has seen many outraged transphobes posting on social media, in uproar about the trans charity Mermaids. It seems that everyone who reads the right-wing press has something to say, including renowned TERF JK Rowling.

    Mermaids is an organisation providing vital support for transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children and young people. But many are demanding that it is stripped of its charity status after an article in the Telegraph.

    Of course, like much of the mainstream media, the Telegraph is renowned for its “transphobia-riddled” reporting. Its front page headline tells the world that Mermaids is sending out breast-binders to children without their parents’ consent. Moreover, the right-wing paper says:

    The Telegraph has uncovered evidence of the Mermaids online help centre offering advice to users who present themselves as young as 13 that controversial hormone-blocking drugs are safe and “totally reversible”.

    In the last month alone, this newspaper has seen discussions in the charity’s moderated forum for 12 to 15-year-olds on how to raise money to start taking drugs and the best way to take testosterone.

    Trying to discredit Mermaids

    In response, Mermaids has released a statement saying:

    In August 2022, an individual – possibly a journalist – tried to gain access to the Youth forums by pretending to be a 14-year-old in need of support, seemingly with the aim of discrediting Mermaids. This person was caught in the moderation process and has since been blocked.

    With regards to recommending chest binders, Mermaids added:

    Some trans masculine, non-binary and gender diverse people experience bodily dysphoria, as a result of their chest, and binding, for some, helps alleviate that distress. Mermaids takes a harm reduction position with the understanding that providing a young person with a binder and comprehensive safety guidelines from an experienced member of staff is preferable to the likely alternative of unsafe practices and/or continued or increasing dysphoria.

    Transphobic Telegraph

    Of course, people have called out the Telegraph and its supporters as transphobic. One person tweeted:

    Meanwhile, Louise LaTran tweeted:

    And Lee William said:

    Court case

    It’s no coincidence that Mermaids is being targeted just as it has spearheaded a very public case against the LGB Alliance for propagating transphobia. After five days of evidence, the case has been adjourned until November. It’s possible that the Telegraph timed its exposé to coincide with this case, in an attempt to discredit Mermaids as much as possible before the case concludes.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona; cropped to 770 x 403px, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • We live in one of the least forested countries in Europe; only 13.2% of land in the UK is covered in woodland. Depressingly, this figure includes monoculture conifer plantations, devoid of birdsong, which exist to make profit from their timber. Ancient forest makes up just 2.5% of our land.

    And so the news that Center Parcs wants to destroy one of England’s last ancient forests has been met with both despair and outrage. On Saturday 24 September, 300 people gathered to trespass in the private woodland of Oldhouse Warren to protest against Center Parcs’ plans. If the corporation gets the go-ahead, it will destroy 553 acres of this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, filled with gnarly old beech and oak trees.

    Landscapes of Freedom (LOF), a local group in Sussex, organised the mass trespass, alongside the Right to Roam campaign. LOF’s Kim Turner told The Canary:

    Center Parcs wants to build 900 lodges, along with a plaza, a ‘sub-tropical swimming paradise’, restaurants, shop, spa, roads and car parking areas. The company portrays itself as offering forest holidays, but it destroys precious habitats. It wants to create a synthetic backdrop to monetise a forest and commodify nature. It will make profit from this forest, transforming it from private ownership to corporate ownership.

    Mass Trespass Sussex

    Trespassing is a necessity

    The forest is fiercely private, out of bounds to normal people. This does, of course, present a problem. After all, how can the public fight to save something that it doesn’t even know exists? How can people feel a connection to a land when barbed wire keeps us out of it?

    Dave Bangs, co-founder of LOF, argues:

    We need to know and love this forest which is on our doorstep if we are to defend it. What the eye cannot see, the heart cannot grieve.

    This is precisely why mass trespasses like this are so important. Of the hundreds of people walking in Oldhouse Warren, only a handful have ever been there. The public is seeing this magical, ancient landscape for the first time. On this very land, plants and creatures of a temperate rainforest, which was dominant 7,000 years ago, still survive.

    LOF said:

    Oldhouse Warren is a place of peace and delight, and home to rare and beautiful wildlife… Its ground nesting birds, like woodcock & nightjar, have some of their last Sussex refuges here in these forests. They need places where we will leave them in peace.

    The group continued:

    The gnarled old veteran oaks, beeches and occasional yew trees are survivors of the wildwood, before humans cleared and changed it so profoundly…

    This wonderful heritage of ancient trees is unloved, unknown and ignored.

    And it desperately needs saving, not destroying in the name of capitalism.

    Mass trespass Sussex

    Smashing through the false narrative

    Of course, the hundreds-strong crowd isn’t just protesting against the Center Parcs development. It is also campaigning for the right to roam in England – to walk freely without fear of being screamed at by an irate, entitled landowner. In England, we only have the right to roam on 8% of the land. 92% is, like Oldhouse Warren, out-of-bounds to the public, and you’ll be trespassing if you set foot on it.

    LOF argues that Oldhouse Warren should be land that everyone can enjoy, much like Epping Forest is to London, or like the New Forest is to Southampton – a common land for everyone.

    Turner told The Canary:

    In the UK, it’s an alien idea to us that we should have the right to walk in our woodland. Everyone is taught to believe that if there is barbed wire and a ‘no trespass’ sign then it’s something you really shouldn’t do. We need to smash through this false notion that because someone’s ancestors were gifted huge tracts of land, or because they became so wealthy from slave trading in the Empire, that they somehow have the right to exclude us from the land. We were all born of this land, and we’re all part of nature. It’s actually a really simple ask: Can I walk gently and respectfully through this forest?

    More trespasses are expected

    This successful trespass is just one of many that have taken place in England over the past year, in Sussex, Devon, Bristol and other parts of the country, as part of the wider right to roam campaign. Just a few days before the action in Oldhouse Warren, campaigners also trespassed in Northumberland on a ‘dark skies’ action, the first mass trespass to take place at night.

    We can expect more trespasses in the near future as the campaign gains more and more momentum. People everywhere are waking up to the fact that the land is for all of us, not just the rich, and we will no longer put up with being excluded from it.

    Featured images via Eliza Egret

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Nature-focused organisations have accused the Conservative government of launching “an attack on nature”. Their criticism centres around the government’s plans to both rip up and relax rules that safeguard the natural world. The UK is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the entire world.

    Revelations on 24 September have further raised fears of an all-out assault on the living world. According to the Observer, the government is poised to potentially axe a plan that would have made farming more nature-friendly. Agriculture is the main driver of the extinction crisis. It’s also a major contributor to the climate crisis – particularly animal agriculture.

    Nowhere will be safe

    The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) posted a lengthy Twitter thread on 23 September outlining its concerns.

    The organisation highlighted that Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget contained plans to create new so-called investment zones in 38 areas of England. According to the government, these zones will have “liberalised planning rules” and “reforms” aimed at speedy development, including on land that is currently out of bounds.

    RSPB England created a map that showed the areas currently protected for nature within these zones. This indicates how many nature sites are at risk from the plan:

    The organisation said that “nowhere will be safe” if the plans go ahead.

    Prior to the mini-budget, the government also brought the retained EU law revocation and reform bill before parliament. The business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg explained the bill’s intention:

    The bill will sunset the majority of retained EU law so that it expires on 31 December 2023. All retained EU law contained in domestic secondary legislation and retained direct EU legislation will expire on this date, unless otherwise preserved.

    There are 570 environmental laws among the retained EU laws that are now on the chopping block, according to the Guardian.

    In a blog post on the government’s plans, the RSPB highlighted that nature in the UK has been declining for decades. It warned:

    The laws that are now under attack were introduced to protect what we had left. Without them nature would be in even worse trouble. They’ve given us hope that some of our rarest and most vulnerable wildlife can still recover. 

    Attack on nature intensified

    The outlook for wildlife recovery in England reduced further still on 24 September. The Observer reported that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is considering regressing on farming subsidy payments. Until recently, the government planned to start paying farmers for adopting more nature-friendly practices. This system, based on a ‘public money for public goods‘ principle, would replace the longstanding regime of giving taxpayers’ money to farmers based on how much land they farm.

    The DEFRA sources told the Observer that the new system is now under review. And the department is considering regressing to a regime much more in line with the old pay-per-area system.

    In response to RSPB’s Twitter thread, DEFRA defended the government’s actions:

    Meanwhile, a Treasury spokesperson insisted:

    The Government remains committed to setting a new legally binding target to halt the decline of biodiversity in England by 2030.

    Despite the government’s protestations, its plans represent a real threat to nature. Last year, researchers warned that the UK has already lost so much biodiversity that it risks an “ecological meltdown”, ITV reported. This government’s proposals are the last thing we need.

    Featured image via Sky News / YouTube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 6 September, Liz Truss assumed the office of prime minister after receiving support from 57.4% of Conservative Party members who voted in the leadership election. Those members consist of a mere 0.4% of the UK population.

    Now, Truss’s laughing chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng has unveiled a mini-budget which can only be described as an all-out declaration of war on workers, particularly the poor.

    Meanwhile, the Bank of England has made it clear that the UK is now in recession.

    Rich get richer

    The winners from the Tory mini-budget are the well-off – those earning more than £150k a year. Indeed, it’s understood that someone earning more than £1m a year will be the beneficiary of tax cuts of more than £55k a year.

    Moreover, the so-called tax cuts for the less well-off is an illusion, explains Howard Beckett of Unite the Union:

    Other budgetary measures include removing the cap on how much bankers get in bonuses.

    The Resolution Foundation posted a graph that demonstrates how the rich will disproportionately benefit from the budget:

    “Brutal” measures

    Kwarteng is also targeting Universal Credit recipients by threatening to pause or reduce their benefits.

    Independent SAGE member and former WHO director Anthony Costello tweeted that these measures are “brutal”:

    Meanwhile, Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham called the measures in the budget “immoral”. He also posted a graph that sums up the impact Kwarteng’s mini-budget will have:

    The energy bills rip-off

    Then there’s the energy bill crisis, which will leave poor people that much more worse off. Beckett points out how these bills are “a complete rip off”:

    As The Canary has previously pointed out, instead of a windfall tax on the energy companies, those companies will receive billions of pounds. And the cost will be met by tax payers.

    Failing economy

    In the wake of Kwarteng’s budget and the rise in the cost of borrowing, the pound tumbled against the US dollar to its lowest level since 1985. It will likely mean prices of imports will rocket, leading to higher prices generally, as well as higher inflation. And it’s predicted that interest rates could rise to 5% in 2023, affecting mortgages and consumer credit to add to the squeeze.

    Regarding Truss’s economic strategy, this is supposedly based on the myth of trickle down economics. One Twitter user neatly summed this up:

    As for exports, another Twitter user pointed out that Brexit is costing the UK £100bn a year in lost output, according to the Financial Times:

    Also, the number of UK businesses exporting goods to the EU fell 33%, from 27,321 businesses in 2020 to 18,357 in 2021, according to data from HMRC.

    Other anti-worker measures

    Previously, The Canary warned of other measures planned for by Truss. For example, we published details of how Truss intends to destroy hard-won employment rights and environmental protections.

    And earlier in 2022, Kwarteng changed the law to make strike-breaking legal:

    Class war moves up a level

    The Canary has been comprehensively covering the Tories’ class war in its many manifestations. Now, Kwarteng’s mini-budget takes that war to another level, so further widening the gap between rich and poor.

    The Tories’ brutal measures will likely cause more people to become destitute, starve, or die. Moreover, inflation will ensure interest rates continue to rise, affecting those on mortgages or in debt. Overall, except for the very wealthy, these latest measures will negatively affect millions of people.

    As for Truss, she is backed by the secretive European Research Group. This is the same group that’s responsible for the hard-line approach on Brexit which the Johnson government adopted. So expect more hard-line measures in the coming months.

    It’s time we fought back, as Beckett says:

    Just how much more can people take?

    Featured image via YouTube

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Sun writer and occasional Labour leader Keir Starmer has announced he will bring in a ‘Hillsborough law‘ if he gets into power. His announcement comes ahead of Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, a city renowned for its love of the Murdoch press. Not.

    The Sun‘s reporting of the 1989 Hillsborough football disaster led to the newspaper being despised and boycotted in the city. Following the disaster, in which 96 people died, the Sun made false claims, including that fans pickpocketed the bodies of victims.

    The Scum

    Starmer, man of the people that he is, has written for the Sun since becoming Labour leader. This was after making a big deal of his refusal to do so during his leadership campaign:

    This city has been wounded by the media… and I certainly will not be giving an interview to The Sun during the course of this campaign.

    It would be reasonable to think his new pledge would go down well in the Land of the Scousers. Hillsborough remains a cultural touchstone in the city. The legislation Starmer is proposing would, in theory, help victims get justice in cases where the state is liable.

    Tory boy?

    But it’s not that simple. Certainly, Liverpool votes Labour. But many people in the city quite understandably feel that writing for the paper which disparaged the Hillsborough victims is beyond the pale.

    And they aren’t afraid to say so. Some questioned the timing of the announcement, as it comes ahead of the party conference in Liverpool:

    Others said Starmer was little better than a Tory himself:

    One person tweeted the infamous Sun front page which still sticks in the minds of many Scousers:

    Starmer faced criticism for allowing the Sun to come to the Labour party conference in 2021. Now, days after he tweeted about ‘introducing the Hillsborough Law’, the paper seems to once again have a presence at the conference in Liverpool. A stark change from 2016, when it was banned from the party conference.

    Red City?

    Many people in British politics operate according to huge assumptions about Liverpool. For example, it’s enduring socialist mythology. There may be atoms of truth in that view, but it’s a far more complex place than many understand.

    One thing is true, though: the Sun, and those who write for it, will be given short thrift by a lot of local people. Their support shouldn’t be taken for granted. And woe betide Labour leaders who think they can flit back and forth between the Murdoch press and the city which detests it most of all.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Rwendland, cropped to 770 x 403, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has already screwed up the next round of so-called cost of living payments. This time, it’s chronically ill and disabled people who are affected. But the situation begs the question: how can the DWP mess up something so simple?

    DWP: insulting payments

    On Tuesday 20 September, the DWP was due to send out £150 one-off payments to around six million people who got certain disability/health social security entitlements. It’s part of the government cost of living support packages. According to the government’s website:

    The payment will help disabled people with the rising cost of living, acknowledging the higher disability-related costs they often face

    Of course, £150 is an insult to chronically ill and disabled people. In 2019, they already faced extra costs of £583 a month on average, compared to non-disabled people. Now, that figure would be nearer £650 – less than the monthly highest Personal Independence Payment (PIP) rate. So, £150 is hardly something to shout about. But it is still extra money that people wouldn’t otherwise have.

    So, with inflation and interest rates rocketing and the poorest people struggling more than ever, what does the DWP do? Screw up paying the £150.

    Enter Martin Lewis

    As Martin Lewis and his Money Saving Expert (MSE) website reported, the DWP told it:

    that “operational issues” have led to delays in sending out the money. DWP said the operational problems meant it has so far only been able to send out a limited number of payments

    Lewis’s own, albeit unscientific, research said otherwise – with thousands of people telling him on Twitter and Facebook they hadn’t got the payment yet. It was a similar story in another Twitter thread. On social media, those affected were furious:

    As Twitter user Thomas pointed out:

    It’s not clear what the “operational issues” are that meant the DWP has already messed up the £150 payments. As The Canary previously reported, despite the government claiming it couldn’t, the DWP can change its IT systems to make payments to people virtually whenever it wants.

    DWP: doesn’t care

    A DWP spokesperson “assured” MSE that everyone would get their £150 by the “30 September”. But this is not good enough. It had months to plan a roll out to six million people already on its system. Yet the DWP still couldn’t manage it.

    This doesn’t show operational issues. It shows the DWP is utterly negligent towards chronically ill and disabled people, and other claimants. Because clearly the department just couldn’t be bothered to get this right – at a time when millions of people are relying on it to.

    Featured image via the Guardian – YouTube and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Watching Queen Elizabeth’s funeral on Monday, I found myself experiencing two reactions simultaneously:

    As an advocate of republicanism in Britain — i.e., as someone who believes the monarchy should be abolished entirely and replaced by a republic with an elected head of state — I snorted in horror at the vast pomp and circumstance, at the enforced, ritualistic national mourning, at the millions of people lining the streets from London to Windsor to say goodbye to a person many had never met, at the medieval rituals, at the costumes, at the proclamation from the archbishop of Canterbury about how we were all swearing allegiance to the new king, the protector of the faith, member of the Order of Garters, and so on. What on earth does all of that ritual and assertion of hereditary, God-given, privilege have to say to us in a democratic age?

    But at the same time, I was also fascinated by the continuity represented by these centuries-old rituals and the glimpse into the past afforded by the pageantry. Those very elaborate scenes that so roused my anti-monarchical ire at the same time also served as bay windows into the vast span of British history. There was something mythical, and mystical, about it; one could, in such an orgy of pomp and circumstance, almost see how the Romans promoted their emperors to God status. The wrap-around media coverage seemingly showed a mortal woman being carefully transferred, through age-old incantations and rituals etched into the crevasses of time, over to the pantheon of the Gods.

    Unfortunately, in the Britain of 2022, only the latter of these two reactions would pass muster. Were the anti-monarchist in me let loose on the streets of the U.K., with a bullhorn and a placard, I would risk arrest. Were I to simply seek to get on with my everyday life, I’d instead have to navigate a warren of bizarre exhortations to grief.

    Over the past week, dozens of stories have surfaced of the extreme lengths to which institutions and individuals are going to profess their unstinting loyalty to, and grief on behalf of, the royal family.

    In an ostentatious show of this grief, food banks have shuttered — which will certainly hurt the hungry, but probably won’t do much to actually make the Queen’s grieving family feel better. Some supermarkets have toned down their checkout beeps, which will clearly make it more difficult for hard of hearing customers to keep track of what they are paying for, but will probably not really contribute to a sense of national healing after the death of the head of state. In a season of massive industrial action, postal workers and train drivers also pushed back their strikes. A number of bicycle racks, where people can park and lock their bikes, have closed for the two-week mourning period, and the organization British Cycle initially told its members they should abstain from bicycling on the day of the funeral, all of which will likely force more cyclists into driving cars instead but, again, probably won’t render whole the shattered psyche of the House of Windsor — unless, for reasons unknown, “The Firm,” as it is colloquially referred to, has a particular animus to two-wheeled modes of transportation.

    Sports events have been canceled; theaters have gone dark. Transport for London, which manages the capital city’s bus and underground train network, ordered street musicians to stop singing on transit property until after the funeral, presumably on the dubious assumption that commuters are so all-consumed in grieving that a few loose strains of Beatles or Dylan classics wafting through their local Tube station would terminally discombobulate them.

    Other stories include that of a holiday park chain telling guests they would have to vacate their hotel rooms on the day of the funeral. Apparently, according to this line of reasoning, vacation goers having fun would fatally undermine national solidarity.

    Even more worryingly than this nonsense, however, has been the law enforcement response. People expressing republican sentiments — either arguing aloud against the monarchy at public events or holding up protest signs protesting the passage of hereditary power from Queen Elizabeth to King Charles — have run afoul of two laws: the Public Order Act of 1986, which allows police to arrest people they deem as using threatening or abusive words, either out loud or on a sign, or talking in a way likely to cause harm or distress to others; and the recently passed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which, most controversially, provides for the arrest of people causing “a serious annoyance.” Some of these protesters now face prison terms or fines for their activities.

    A heckler who shouted out that Prince Andrew — implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal — was a “sick old man,” was arrested and charged with breaching the peace.

    A barrister who wanted to test the limits of free speech journeyed to Westminster and held up a blank piece of cardboard in protest; the police questioned him but didn’t make an arrest. When he asked what they would do if he wrote “Not my king” on the cardboard, he was told he would be arrested.

    When a protester in Oxford called out “Who elected him?” when royal heralds came through the ancient university town to proclaim Charles the new king, he was promptly manhandled, handcuffed and thrown in the back of a police van.

    In Edinburgh, a man was arrested for holding up a sign reading “Fuck Imperialism. Abolish monarchy.” And the list goes on.

    There is an irony to all of this. The reason that so much of the world seems utterly preoccupied by the Queen’s death is that, in life, she did not seem to strive for autocracy and instead was associated in the public’s mind with a Britain characterized by democracy and free speech — the sort of place that could stand proud against the Nazis and their vicious totalitarian vision, or, more recently, offer safe haven to those fleeing Russian atrocities in Ukraine.

    How entirely bizarre, therefore, that as Elizabeth II’s body lay in state before she was interred, and as leaders of many of the world’s great democracies journeyed to London to pay tribute to her, the country over which she presided for 70 years indulged in rampant and gratuitous attacks on free speech and peaceful dissent.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Saturday 18 September, busloads of Hindutva nationalists descended on Leicester to carry out violent attacks against members of the local community. Mainstream reports are framing the violence to be a case of local tensions between Hindu and Muslim communities. However, this was a targeted attack led by Hindu nationalists who were not local to the area. According to witnesses, those involved shouted Hindutva exclamations, targeted attacks against local Muslims, and damaged mosques in the area.

    The violence on Saturday reflects the rise of Hindu nationalism in the UK. Rather than seeking short-sighted criminal justice responses to a global issue, we must unite in solidarity against Hindutva fascism.

    Speaking to the false victimhood narrative espoused by Hindu nationalists, Majid Freeman (who witnessed events on Saturday) tweeted:

    The Guardian‘s northern community affairs correspondent Aina J. Khan shared:

    Hindutva violence

    Indeed, “Jai Shri Ram” has been co-opted by Hindutva nationalists enacting vicious Islamphobic mob violence in India. The utterance of this phrase in Leicester reflects the success of attempts to export Hindu nationalism to the UK.

    The Indian High Commission in the UK issued a press release, framing local retaliation carried out by a small number of community members to be “against the Indian Community” and Hindu religion. This framing of events is disingenuous, and feeds into false ‘both sides’ arguments. It ultimately seeks to legitimise the fascist ideology of Hindu nationalist paramilitary group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political arm the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is led by Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.

    As writer and activist Amrit Wilson has explained, the Hindu far-right RSS and BJP have a great deal of power and influence in Britain.

    Reacting to the Labour Party’s criticism of Modi’s settler colonial agenda in Kashmir in 2019, Hindu nationalists launched a strident anti-Labour propaganda campaign in areas including Leicester, Harrow, and Brent. This campaign was based on claims that Labour’s commentary was anti-Indian and anti-Hindu.

    Meanwhile, evidence suggests that UK spy agencies shared intelligence with the Indian authorities to help capture and detain Sikh human rights activist Jagtar Singh Johal in 2017.

    The RSS and BJP also have a great deal of support from the British government. In 2020, Indian police used tear gas and water cannons against Indian farmers protesting Modi’s repressive farm laws. By 2021, an estimated 700 farmers had died while campaigning to overturn the laws. But in April 2022, then-prime minister Boris Johnson celebrated Britain’s partnership with the Indian government in the name of “global peace and security“. This reflects the extent to which the British state has legitimised Modi’s oppressive and deeply Islamophobic BJP government in India.

    Policing is not the answer

    On 19 September, Leicester Police shared that officers had arrested 47 people and sentenced one young person in relation to the events. Police have now increased their presence in East Leicester.

    Reacting to calls for criminal justice responses to the violence in Leicester, writer Ilyas Nagdee said:

    Amardeep S Dillon added:

    Indeed, we can’t let what happened in Leicester legitimise the further encroachment of policing and surveillance of South Asian communities in Britain. In particular, South Asian Muslims are overpoliced and surveilled through state ‘War on Terror’ strategies such as the Islamophobic Prevent duty. And a recent report by the Institute of Race Relations revealed that citizenship-stripping powers introduced in 2002 have reduced South Asian British Muslims to a ‘second-class citizenship’.

    Responses that depend on the criminal justice and immigration systems will only serve to further harm South Asian communities in general, and South Asian Muslims in particular. Instead, we need responses that foster accountability, healing, and community.

    South Asian solidarity

    The only logical response to the violence in Leicester is a united front against Hindu fascism. As writer Taj Ali shared:

    In fact, Britain has a long, rich history of South Asian anti-racist and anti-fascist organising. In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, young British South Asian Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus collectively built strong self-defence and community empowerment movements in towns and cities across the UK. This legacy is present in the organisation of groups such as Black Lives Matter and Sikhs Against the English Defence League today.

    Broad-based solidarity is the only way we can overcome ‘divide and rule’ politics. Recognising this, anti-imperialist and anti-racist group South Asia Solidarity has organised an emergency protest at 6pm on Thursday 22 September at the Indian High Commission:

    Saturday’s events have made it abundantly clear that it’s time for us to take a firm stand against the rise of Hindu nationalism in the UK, and undermine attempts to stifle South Asian solidarity.

    Featured image via Majid Freeman/Twitter

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The total number of coronavirus (covid-19) infections in the UK has seen a rise of over 20% within the last three weeks. Following a six-week drop in numbers from a high of 4,640,491 cases on 17 July, we hit a low of 1,490,772 on 21 September. However, yesterday – 21 September – saw a total of 1,794,310 infections according to the ZOE health study, showing the first signs of a new surge.

    Record-breaking increase

    i News reported that professor Tim Spector, of King’s College London and the ZOE study, predicts that:

     daily symptomatic infections will rise to around 600,000 to 650,000 cases a day by the end of October or early November, considerably higher than the previous record of 351,000 in July.

    These predictions are supported by similar findings from Independent SAGE, a body of scientists working to provide independent advice on covid to the UK government. Christina Pagel, professor at University College London and Independent SAGE member, tweeted that the:

    latest NHS England data for hospital admissions with Covid to 19 Sept is showing a definite upturn.

    The ‘unmitigated’ scenario

    Prof. Pagel also agreed that we are likely to see a significant covid wave in October because of the rise of new, more transmissible variants. She stated that there are:

    various lineages growing that significantly outcompete current major variant (BA.5.2) … most notably brand new omicron sub BQ.1.1, (faster even than BA.2.75.2) of which UK has 50% global numbers (only 30 still).

    Stephen Griffin, associate professor at Leeds University and Independent SAGE member, criticised the lack of prevention measures other than vaccines. He said:

    We remain in a highly unstable and ‘unmitigated’ scenario due to the over-reliance upon vaccines in isolation. Waning protection from infection, combined with changes in behaviour mean that BA5 is likely to rebound – for example with schools, universities and workplaces returning and more time spent indoors without open windows, and the near-abandonment of masking.

    …As schools re-open

    The UK government has removed all remaining domestic restrictions which might otherwise have limited the rise in case numbers. In particular, as schools and universities re-open across the country, government advice holds that:

    It is not recommended that children and young people are tested for COVID-19 unless directed to by a health professional […]

    Children and young people who usually go to school, college or childcare and who live with someone who has a positive COVID-19 test result should continue to attend as normal.

    We know that the BQ.1.1 is more transmissible than ever before. We know that long covid is causing lasting symptoms for as many as 20% of survivors. Even if our children are at less risk, as the government says, their teachers are not. Their families are not. The people whom those teachers and families come into contact with are not. What we are seeing here is simply another example of the callous disregard that the Tories have for the lives of the people they are meant to protect.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Alissa Eckert, Dan Higgins, resized to 770×403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Mortar demonstrations involving military forces from five nations have taken place in Fiji.

    The tactical field training exercise called Exercise Cartwheel was a US and Fiji-led multinational exercise conducted in the Nausori Highlands.

    It involved defence personnel from the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, United States Army Pacific, the New Zealand Defence Force, the British Army and the Australian Defence Force.

    The exercise was designed to enhance capability in both urban and jungle environments.

    Training also included demonstrations of sustained fire machine guns, section attacks and ambushes, reacting to enemy indirect firing, and ethical decision-making scenarios.

    TVNZ reported Major Atonia Nagauna of the Fiji Infantry Regiment, Third Battalion, saying that Pacific nations faced challenges that require collective action.

    “When I talk about threats, I talk about natural disasters, I talk about illegal fishing, I talk about other traditional non-state actors which try and destabilise this part of the world,” he said.

    “We work together so we feel we are not alone and they also treat us as equal partners in this.”

    The exercise brings together the same allies which fought side-by-side in Solomon Islands during World War II.

    The tactical field training exercise imn Fiji, Exercise Cartwheel
    The tactical field training exercise, Exercise Cartwheel, was a US and Fiji-led multinational exercise conducted in the Nausori Highlands in Fiji. Image: Petty Officer Chris Weissenborn/RNZ

    Developing long-standing relationships in the Pacific
    The New Zealand Defence Force said a total of 55 combat soldiers from 1st (NZ) Brigade participated in the exercise.

    A light infantry platoon from Delta Company, 2nd/1st Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (RNZIR), also conducted reconnaissance operations, section and platoon harbours drills, survival and tracking training.

    New Zealand’s Land Component Commander, Brigadier Hugh McAslan, said New Zealand had long-standing relationships with their military partners in the Pacific and valued opportunities to train alongside them.

    “This exercise also provides opportunities for our people to immerse themselves in Fijian culture, build strong professional and personal relationships with our Pacific military whanau, as well as train in an environment that is different to New Zealand,” he said.

    “We are taking every opportunity to learn from one another. In doing so, these skills and relationships, coupled with professionalism, set the conditions for a bright future for our region.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Joe Biden has dragged Liz Truss on social media over her economic policies. Of course, what the situation actually shows is that both leaders are little more than corporate capitalists. The only difference is that Biden is slightly better at hiding it than Truss.

    Truss trickles

    Truss’s approach to economic policy is looking very “trickle-down”. As Larry Elliot wrote for the Guardian:

    The theory of trickle down economics is simple. Governments should cut taxes for the better off and for corporations because that is the key to securing faster growth. Entrepreneurs are more likely to start and expand businesses, companies are more inclined to invest and banks will tend to increase lending if they are paying less in tax.

    Initially, the beneficiaries are the rich, but gradually everyone gains because as the economy gets bigger well-paid jobs are created for working people. Governments should stop focusing on how the economic pie is distributed and focus on growing the pie instead.

    In terms of her plans – including lowering taxes and cutting stamp duty, Truss is reported to have said that:

    We want people to keep more of the money they earn, because we believe that freedom trumps instruction. We are reforming our economy to get Britain moving forward once again.

    The government has furiously denied that this is trickle-down economics. But of course, it’s unlikely that any growth will actually trickle down regardless of what it’s called. What Truss’s approach will likely do is:

    • Increase debt.
    • Make the rich richer.
    • Make the poor poorer.
    • Cause an explosive rise in inequality.

    Truss doesn’t think this is unfair. But even the corporate capitalist International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is responsible for pushing African and South American countries into debt and austerity, has slammed trickle-down economics. So, enter Biden to pour more scorn on Truss’s plans.

    Biden: just as bad

    The US president appeared to subtweet Truss, saying:

    I am sick and tired of trickle-down economics. It has never worked. We’re building an economy from the bottom up and middle out.

    Biden’s plan seems at odds with Truss’s – a problem for the capitalists who drool over the UK and US’s ‘special relationship’. The Guardian reported that he is planning to tax the top 1% earners more to pay for social measures for the poorest people. But much like Truss, Biden’s plan also ultimately benefits the rich. World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) called his plans a:

    miserable climb-down from earlier iterations of the Biden administration’s domestic agenda, purged of any significant social measures, restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions or corporate tax hikes…

    It is unlikely to fool the masses of working people, who face brutal inflation and a deliberate policy of increasing unemployment to halt a growing wages movement.

    So, neither leader is actually doing a lot for the poorest people. Yet Biden has still managed to drag Truss with ease. Firstly, this shows that the new UK PM is as weak and wishy-washy as the last one. But it also shows that on both sides of the Atlantic, neither leader has the best interests of the poorest people at heart.

    Featured image via the Telegraph – YouTube and Jimmy Kimmel Live – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been urged to review the controversial benefit cap. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has warned that if it doesn’t, it will be disastrous for tens of thousands of families. The charity has also said that the cap has meant that social security claimants have lost out on over £13,000 a year already.

    The DWP put the benefit cap in place in 2013. It restricts how much money it gives social security claimants. The cap is currently:

    £20,000 per year (or £13,400 for single adults with no children) nationally.

    £23,000 per year (£15,410 for single adults with no children) in Greater London.

    In April 2022, the CPAG said the DWP’s cap had caused a real-terms cut of £2,070 a year to families’ social security. The DWP has never increased the cap since it introduced it in 2013. In fact, in 2016 it cut it. But now, the CPAG has crunched the numbers again – and the figures are even more shocking.

    £13,000 a year cut by the DWP

    The benefit cap hits around 120,000 households, including 300,000 children. Come April 2023, the CPAG says it will affect another 35,000 families. But it has also worked out that 94% of households hit by the cap wouldn’t be if the DWP had increased its levels. Moreover, it affects the poorest people. As the CPAG said:

    Capped households are some of the poorest families across the country. An average capped couple with two children is £150 a week below the poverty line.

    However, the CPAG says that if the DWP removed the cap, households would be £65 a week better off, on average. It estimates that it would cost the government £500m to do this. It is urgent that the DWP removes the benefit cap, because the CPAG has said that the situation for the families it hits has become even worse.

    The charity estimates that because the DWP has never increased the cap, by 2023/24, households outside of London will have seen a real-terms cut of £260 a week – that’s over £13,000 a year. While not all families might actually lose this much, it shows the scale of the cruelty.

    The DWP says…

    The Canary asked the DWP for comment. We specifically wanted to know if it was reviewing the benefit cap in November. This is when it will review all social security rates, ready for April 2023’s increase. As we previously reported, the DWP can review the level of the benefit cap whenever it wants. However, so far it’s failed to do this since 2016. The department had not responded at the time of publication.

    “Catastrophic”

    CPAG chief executive Alison Garnham was scathing of the cap. She said in a press release:

    The benefit cap is cruel and irrational at the best of times – many parents subject to it can’t escape it by working more because they are caring for very young children and housing costs are completely out of their control. But in the current crisis its effects will be truly catastrophic for hundreds of thousands of children, pushing many into deep poverty… there can be no doubt that leaving it in place will damage the lives of children up and down the country. It must be abolished before it harms more children.

    It seems unthinkable that £13,000-a-year worth of real-terms cuts later, the DWP would not review the benefit cap this year. However, given its track record, there seems to be no reason why it would bother.

    Featured image via The Canary and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

  • By our correspondent

    New York: Prime Minister of Pakistan Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif arrived at the United Nations Headquarters to attend the reception given by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, in honor of the heads of state and government participating in the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

    The premier has arrived in New York to participate in the High-Level General Debate of the 77th Session of UN General Assembly (UNGA77), scheduled from 20 to 26 September 2022 at UN HQs, New York, USA.

    According to a statement issued by the media wing of the Prime Minister’s Office, Prime Minister Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif will spend a busy day in New York today.

    The Prime Minister will participate in the opening session of the high-level discussion of the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

    Besides this, the Prime Minister will hold bilateral meetings with H.E Mr. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic of France;  H.E Mr. Karl Nehammer, Federal Chancellor of the Republic of Austria; H.E Mr. Pedro Sanchez Perez-Castejon, President of Spain: and H.E Mr. Sayyed Ebrahim Raisi, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    In the afternoon, the Prime Minister will visit The Times Centre for an interview with the New York Time’s Editorial Board.

    In the evening, the Prime Minister will be called on by Mr. John Kerry, US Special Envoy for Climate Change.

    The Prime Minister was received at John F Kennedy (JFK) International Airport, New York by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN Munir Akram, Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington Masood Khan and other senior officers.

    Meanwhile APP added: The prime minister is set to address the 193-member Assembly during its high-level debate on September 23.

    The debate opens Tuesday and ends on Sept. 26

    The prime minister flew into New York from London where he attended the final rites of Queen Elizabeth II.

    On his arrival at New York’s John F Kennedy International Airport , he was received by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Munir Akram, Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington, Masood Khan, Consul General in New York, Ayesha Ali and other senior officials.

    On September 20, the prime minister would attend a reception to be hosted by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

    On the same day, he would also meet French President Emmanuel Macron, the Austrian chancellor and the Spanish president.

    A meeting with President of the European Union Council Charles Michel and participation in Global Food Security Summit to be hosted by President of Senegal and the African Union is also on the agenda of the prime minister’s visit.

    On September 21, he would meet Managing Director of International Monetary Fund Kristalina Georgieva and President of World Bank David Malpass, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi.

    Besides meeting with the UNGA president, Csaba Korosi, the prime minister would also attend a dinner reception to be hosted by US President Joe Biden.

    Prime Minister Sharif will also host a luncheon reception in honour of Turkish president and his spouse, besides meeting with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto.

    Meetings with Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the UN chief, Chinese President Premier Li Keqiang and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida are also part of the prime minister’s engagements.

    He would also meet Luxembourg PM Xavier Bettel and Malaysian PM Ismail Sabri Yaakob on the same day, besides interacting with international media outlets.

  • The queen was good at what she did; slick even. Her public faux pas were few, or not widely grasped enough to have wide impact.

    King Charles III has no such reputation. He’s already sacked his staff and made several brattish clangers on video. He helped make a hero of his late wife Diana through his and his family’s antics, and his Jeffrey Epstein-linked brother Andrew will automatically deputise for the king in case of emergencies. On top of this, Charles has been for many years an ambassador for the British arms industry.

    He must not have an easy ride, at least not nearly as easy as his life during his 73-year apprenticeship. The truth is, the king has to go, and so does the institution of monarchy. And no amount of monarchist (or republican) moralism about timing, or respect, or most laughably their ‘service’, should stop us saying it. Anything which inspires the bizarre queue – a sort of idiot ‘Human Respectipede’ – currently winding its way through London’s streets needs to go in the bin.

    Immoral or ignorant?

    That said, republicanism in mainland Britain is in a shocking state – despite a decent amount of support for it. Up to a quarter of Brits want an elected head of state – this goes up to 40% among young people. Meanwhile, 36% of Scottish people say the end of the queen’s reign should usher in a republic. These are sizeable minorities which are given few platforms in the mainstream media or public narrative.

    And they are right to oppose it. The monarchy is a ridiculous and oppressive institution built on violence. There is no nuance to be had here: if you are a monarchist, or waver and drip over the question of monarchy (in which case, you may well be a monarchist), you are either immoral or ignorant.

    If you can see the monarchy for what it is and don’t care, you’re clearly immoral. If you refuse to stop being spoon-fed lies about the British empire, you’re purposely ignorant.  At least the latter category might be redeemable through education, but not with things as they are.

    The only specific organisation which speaks to this grand old strain of UK politics is Republic. Liberal, reformist, and flaky, its first call upon the death of the queen was instructive: let’s hold fire on debate until a more appropriate time:

    This should not shock. It is a feature of liberal republicanism that it is almost as twee and deferent as monarchism itself, and about as likely to seriously oppose the Royal institution. And this is nowhere more apparent than in the main organisation meant to oppose the Royal racket.

    Left republicanism

    There isn’t really a question about whether we need to get rid of the monarchy. It’s about how we oppose it in an invigorated and non-deferent way.

    The questions of land ownership, foreign policy, democracy, landlordism, equality, climate change, and more run smack bang through the middle of the monarchy – the ridiculous medieval core of what purports to be a modern state. That is not to say its ideal replacement is a president. No capitalist state can ever be good enough. But a fierce new republicanism can start to address and oppose our own unique, and uniquely perverse, systems of power.

    Republicanism, rather like free speech, is simply too important to be left to flaky liberals and self-assured Tories. It must become a key part of any strategy to increase working class power and confidence.

    The question now is what that looks like.

    Featured image via screenshot – YouTube/Channel 4 News

    By Joe Glenton

  • Today marks the sixth day of Mermaids’ appeal against the LGB Alliance’s charity status. For their part, Mermaids is a charity supporting transgender, non-binary, and gender-diverse young people. LGB Alliance (LGBA), on the other hand, describes itself as standing for the “right to live as same-sex attracted people without discrimination or disadvantage.” However, it is commonly argued that LGBA mainly exists to propagate transphobia, and the original decision of the Charity Commission to grant them charity status was met with widespread condemnation from the LGBT+ community.

    LGBA – a history of phobia

    After its founding in 2019, one of LGBA’s first actions was to begin a letter-writing campaign to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). As part of this campaign, LGBA attacked what it called “Stonewall Law” – the guidance given by the popular LGBT charity Stonewall to places of work which seeks to help prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender identity. Notably, LBGA claimed that Stonewall was trying to replace the term “gender reassignment”, which is used in EHRC guidance.

    During its brief and troubled existence, the LGBA has become embroiled in several accusations of homophobia. Its Twitter account once suggested that it wasn’t homophobic to oppose gay marriage because relatively few gay people actually got married, to which it added the hashtag “#notabigdeal”. It also tweeted that:

    Adding the + to LGB gives the green light to paraphilias like bestiality – and more – to all be part of one big happy ‘rainbow family’. Wake up policy makers.

    More recently, charities watchdog the Fundraising Regulator found that LGBA made a false statement that it was the “only registered charity set up to protect and promote the rights and interests of people with LGB orientation”. The regulator found that LGBA had breached the code for the misleading nature of its statement, and in its handling of the subsequent complaints.

    The case

    The case against LGBA is being spearheaded by Mermaids, but they are being supported by the LGBT+ Consortium, Gendered Intelligence, LGBT Foundation and TransActual, as well as being crowdfunded by the Good Law Project.

    As the basis for its appeal, Mermaids stated that a charity must be set up for charitable purposes, which are pursued in a manner wherein their benefits outweigh any harm caused. It contends that LBGA fails to meet this definition of a charity. It has also pointed out that whilst LGBA claims that it was set up to promote lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, its founder Bev Jackson explicitly stated that:

    We’re applying for charitable status and building an organization to challenge the dominance of those who promote the damaging theory of gender identity.

    The witnesses

    So far, evidence has been heard on behalf of Mermaids from John Nicolson, a Scottish National Party MP, and the chair of Mermaids, Dr Belinda Bell. Nicolson gave evidence on LGBA’s political campaigning against trans rights, including its opposition to Gender Recognition Act reform in Scotland. Notoriously, LGBA ran advertisements opposing GRA reform in the Scotsman, which Nicholson stated were:

     riddled with falsehoods and repeatedly misrepresented the law.

    Dr. Bell clarified Mermaids’ use of sex and gender terminology, and criticised LGBA for its focus on trans children. She stated that:

    based on its public communications, LGB Alliance appears to take the view that trans children do not exist, or that they cannot know they are trans before adulthood.

    This evidence supports the case that LGBA focuses its efforts to a greater extent on the denigration of trans individuals than they do the support of lesbian, gay and bisexual rights – particularly in their repeated focus on vulnerable trans children.

    On the third and fourth days of the hearing, statements were heard from LGB Alliance’s co-founders Bev Jackson and Kate Harris, clarifying their description of LGBA as “gender critical” – i.e., a belief that human sex is immutable.

    The cross-examination focused on Jackson’s apparent belief that trans-inclusive definitions of sexuality are homophobic. The court then moved on to hear more on the history and conduct of LGBA.

    Win or lose – it’s bad news

    Whether or not Mermaids is successful in repealing the charity status of the LGBA, the case could have a number of worrying outcomes. First and foremost, the court has stated that even if:

    the Tribunal directs LGB Alliance’s removal from the register, LGB Alliance will be in the same position as countless campaigning bodies in the UK that are not registered as charities

    This case could merely affect how LGBA is permitted to represent itself to the public.

    Likewise, LGBA’s case is being represented by Karon Monaghan, a panel member of the EHRC, and Akua Reindorf, a commissioner for the EHRC. Notably, they are not acting in their capacity as members of the EHRC. However, it remains deeply troubling that an organisation which should be defending the rights of all LGBT individuals has members which are openly working against trans causes.

    Finally, given the state of Britain’s deeply transphobic press, it could be the case that even if the LGBA is defeated, this fact could simply be ignored. This was the case recently for Allison Bailey, a founder of LGBA, who took Stonewall to court on the basis that its advice to her employer, Garden Court Chambers (GCC), led to her dismissal. Despite losing the case against the LGBT rights charity, it was widely headlined that she had won, on this basis that she was awarded £22,000 from GCC for injury to her feelings.

    The case against LGBA is set to continue for some weeks yet, and the trans population of Britain awaits the verdict with trepidation. However, win or lose, the potential remains for this case to be spun to transphobic ends.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Enforcing a particular view to support the power of the state is a bad look. And that kind of action often undermines the very thing it is meant to defend. Sadly, nobody told the British police. Though it’s worth asking if it would have made any difference.

    In the week following the Queen’s death, and as Charles was proclaimed our new ‘ruler’, a number of arrests were made. And they were for what are, objectively, fairly innocuous acts.

    ‘Who elected him?’

    On 11 September, the Sunday after the queen’s death, a woman was arrested in Edinburgh after up holding a sign protesting the monarch and imperialism. Police said she had committed a breach of the peace as the Queen’s coffin was brought into the city. She was later charged.

    Then on Tuesday Symon Hill, a peace activist renowned for his run in with Piers Morgan over the white poppy, was arrested in Oxford.

    He had merely asked out loud in a public street who elected King Charles.

    Sick old man

    Also in Scotland, a young man named Rory was arrested for heckling Prince Andrew. The controversial Royal was stripped of public duties over allegations about his relationship to the late paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

    Rory had shouted “You’re a sick old man” at Andrew before being dragged away by police. He was also charged. Rory said he thought it was wrong that Andrew had been allowed to get away with what he had been accused of:

    While in London, an officer threatened barrister Paul Powlesland with arrest for holding a blank sign.

    Powlesland later appeared on TV explaining his views. He said that while he hadn’t been a republican before, he certainly was one now.

    State-enforced grief

    Even confirmed republicans were surprised at how badly a bit of minor, individual protest was handled. One person pointed out that this undermined the idea of the Royals having only symbolic power:

    Another pointed out that the endless coverage of the death and succession made republicanism appear to be a view held by a tiny minority.

     

    In truth, up to 31 percent of 18 to 24 years olds support the idea of an elected head of state.

    Naturally, comparisons were made with authoritarian regimes like North Korea:

    While the UK is increasingly leaning towards fascism, North Korea is objectively more authoritarian in a much more profound and literal way. For now, at least.

    Normal Island

    Republicanism is a legitimate point of view. And it is legitimate to express it at any time. And there is no time more appropriate than during the succession of a new king. The reaction on both social media and by the state, to what has been mild protest, tells a story.

    That story is of a country which likes to laud its version of democracy while doing absolutely nothing to suggest it has any notion of the concept. And in doing so, it makes the case for a republic on behalf of those who want it.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Stanislav Koslovskiy, cropped to 770 x 403px, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has said that inflation fell to 9.9% in August – down from 10.1% in July. But of course, this reduction only applies if you’re of a certain social class. Actually, the poorest people won’t see the same fall in inflation as the richest do.

    Inflation: down, allegedly

    On Wednesday 14 September, the ONS said that consumer price inflation (CPI) in August was down to 9.9%. This is still the highest it has been in 40 years. However, as the Guardian noted, there was one area that drove the reduction. This was:

    petrol prices dropping by more than 14p a litre in August as a fall in global oil prices was finally reflected in cheaper motoring costs. The annual inflation rate for motor fuels eased from 43.7% to 32.1% between July and August.

    ‘Great’, you may think. However, lower petrol prices only help some people. As The Canary previously reported, just 35% of the poorest households own a car – versus 93% of the richest ones. This means that the majority of poor people won’t see any benefit from the drop in petrol prices. However, other price increases are still hitting them.

    Food inflation: up

    The ONS said that food inflation has continued to rise:

    Food inflation

    In August, the ONS said food inflation was 13.1% – 3.2% above the main CPI rate. It said that the biggest part of this rise was:

    milk, cheese and eggs, where prices of milk and cheese rose between July and August 2022 by more than between the same two months a year ago.

    It said the overall food inflation increase of 1.5%:

    between July and August 2022 was the largest July to August rise since 1995, when… [figures] showed a 1.6% increase.

    Poor people: screwed again

    So, if you’re poor, your food is more expensive but you’re not seeing cheaper motoring costs. And just as it was time to buy school uniform, the inflation rate on clothes and footwear rose from 6.6% in July to 7.6% in August. Meanwhile, the cost of travelling on things like ferries went up by 3.9%, and bus and coach prices also went up by 1% – likely a direct result of the failing, privatised system.

    Overall, what this means is that for the poorest people who don’t own cars, inflation is still 10.1%. As always, those the system pushes to the bottom of society are the ones who are bearing the brunt of this capitalist chaos.

    Featured image via the ONS

    By Steve Topple

  • Listen to a reading of “Lizzy’s Face”:

    Lizzy’s face on the papers blowing in the wind
    Lizzy’s face on the screens
    Lizzy’s face on the street billboard
    with a homeless man leaning against it.

    Lizzy’s face on the Jumbotron
    Lizzy’s face on the defense industry tweets
    Lizzy’s face on the arrest warrants
    for the criminals who said “Not my king.”

    Lizzy’s face on our money
    Lizzy’s face in my face
    Lizzy’s face on an artillery shell
    funded by the British taxpayer
    and fired by a man wearing neo-Nazi insignia.

    Lizzy’s face on the telly before it cuts out
    because there’s no power
    because it was either electricity or groceries.

    Lizzy’s face on the food banks
    Lizzy’s face on the price hikes
    Lizzy’s face on the blankets shivering bodies cling to
    when they can’t afford to heat their homes.

    Lizzy’s face in their mind’s eye
    Lizzy’s face in their prayers
    Lizzy’s face in their nightmares
    as they huddle close together for warmth.

    Lizzy’s face on the news man’s face
    on the politician’s face
    on the banker’s face
    on the billionaire’s face
    on the warmaker’s face
    on the empire’s face.

    Lizzy’s face on the nuclear missiles
    Lizzy’s face on the drums of war
    Lizzy’s face on the melting permafrost
    and the gasping oceans and the plastic in our blood.

    Lizzy’s face in my chest like a nauseating lump
    rising up through my throat and out into the toilet
    spraying out my mouth and all over the bathroom
    and all over the universe get that dead bitch the fuck out of us.

    Puke Lizzy’s face out of our animal bodies
    so we can run free like wildebeests hatching hearts and songbird throats
    no longer frozen by the bank boys and bastards
    and the grayness of the false world they painted in our minds.

    Let our animal bodies remember our animal ways
    and forget any context wherein Lizzy’s face everywhere made sense.

    There are lovers who need loving
    and a world that needs saving
    and a whole lot of signs
    that are in sore need of vandals.

    _________________

    _________________

    _________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, buying an issue of my monthly zine, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Millions of African people have demanded that the UK and others cease funding an agricultural initiative on the continent. They say that the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) locks farmers into dependence on corporations and environmentally destructive practices. Instead, farmers, along with faith leaders and other civil society organisations (CSOs), have urged funders to redirect financing to initiatives that are ecologically sound and offer self-sufficiency for people.

    Corporate control of agriculture

    AGRA’s name echoes that of an earlier ‘Green Revolution‘. Led mainly by the US, it imposed industrial agricultural practices on various parts of the world in the second half of the 20th Century.

    The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) says that AGRA’s ‘revolution’ is similar. AFSA is a vast network of civil society groups from across Africa that advocates for food sovereignty and agroecological farming, meaning agricultural practices that harness and protect nature. In all, AFSA represents around 200 million people.

    Like its earlier namesake, AGRA’s ‘revolution’ reduces farmers’ autonomy, making them reliant on artificial inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides supplied by corporations, the civil society alliance says. Moreover, these agrochemicals ravage the natural world – from waterways to insects – and play a central role in the world’s environmental crises.

    So AFSA and other organisations have reiterated a call they made last year for defunding of the ‘revolution’. The call came just ahead of AGRA’s annual forum, the African Green Revolution Forum (AGRF). It took place between 5-9 September in Rwanda.

    The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute’s climate justice coordinator Gabriel Manyangadze explained in a press conference on 1 September:

    We are calling upon all the funders to please stop funding AGRA. Redirect your funding towards systems that enable people to have their dignity, for all creation to have an equal chance to live, where there are no chemicals in our water, in our ground, and in our food.

    A failing model

    Founded in 2016, AGRA’s stated aim is to ‘transform’ the agricultural sector in Africa through increased productivity, income, and food security. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a key financial backer, along with organisations like the Rockefeller Foundation. The UK, US and German governments provide funding too.

    As Timothy A. Wise wrote in Mongabay, however, donor-funded research shows that AGRA is failing to achieve its aims in terms of income and food security. Wise is a senior research fellow at Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute. His own research in 2020 found that the number of severely undernourished people had increased by 31% since AGRA’s founding. This increase was in the thirteen countries the ‘revolution’ focuses on.

    Speaking at the press conference, Leonida Odongo from the social justice-focused organisation Haki Nawiri Afrika insisted that African people have the “expertise” to solve the continent’s agricultural issues, not AGRA. They are “best-placed” to provide the necessary “Afro-centric” solutions, she said.

    These solutions should involve sustainable agroecological practices, AFSA says. It asserts that ecologically-friendly bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides can be made from local, low-cost materials, for example, to replace their chemical counterparts.

    The Canary contacted the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for comment on the UK’s funding of AGRA. It did not respond by the time of publication.

    Seed privatisation

    Odongo also pointed out that AGRA focuses on seeds, alongside chemical inputs. From the earlier Green Revolution onwards, corporations have secured a monopoly on seed production. Championed by industrialised nations, they have patented varieties of existing seeds, such as genetically modified organism (GMO) varieties. Four agri-giants currently control over 50% of seeds globally, according to DW.

    Linked to this seed privatisation, Odongo says that African countries are increasingly introducing legislation containing “punitive clauses” that outlaw “age-old traditions” of farmers saving and exchanging seeds. In other words, farmers’ use of indigenous seeds is being restricted by law, forcing them into dependence on corporations’ hybrid varieties instead.

    ‘A pretentious money grab’

    Timothy Kamuzu Phiri, co-founder of environmental NGO Mizu Eco-Care in Zambia, told The Canary:

    Its chemical fertilizer and hybrid seed heavy agenda has snatched the power out of the hands of the small scale farmers whilst simultaneously degrading their soils.

    He further suggested that the initiative hasn’t helped women, who he described as “the anchors of the agricultural sector in Africa”. The donor-funded research, carried out by consultancy firm Mathematica, found that most of those who did benefit from it were male and wealthier to start with. Phiri also pointed out that the chemical fertilizer industry and patent holders of hybrid seeds are key beneficiaries of AGRA. He concluded by saying:

    when a solution marketed as having the interest of local communities at its core actually benefits those same local communities the least, you know you are dealing with a false solution – a pretentious money grab!

    Working together

    Despite this opposition to AGRA among civil society, institutions and policymakers appear to have largely embraced it.

    One such institution is the African Development Bank (ADB). In the press conference, Oakland Institute executive director Anuradha Mittal accused the financial institution of currently using:

    the food price crisis to expand the use of industrial inputs to the benefit of agrochemical and agribusiness firms

    Dr Akinwumi A Adesina is the current head of the ADB. He used to work for AGRA funder the Rockefeller Foundation. He also worked for AGRA itself from 2008-2011, before becoming Nigeria’s agriculture minister.

    In this atmosphere, civil society is struggling to be heard. AFSA’s Kirubel Tadele said that donors have answered AFSA’s call for defunding with silence. Meanwhile, Nnimmo Bassey, director of Nigeria’s Health of Mother Earth Foundation, told The Canary:

    AGRA has studiously avoided responding to the calls from CSOs. They continue to push in with the failed system simply because they have deep pockets behind the endeavour. Efforts at direct communication with AGRA has proven to be like talking to persons who play deaf but have no knowledge of sign language.

    ‘Climate-stupid agriculture’

    At its recent annual event, AGRA attempted to rebrand its initiative. The Seattle Times reported that it will drop any mention of a ‘green revolution’. From now on, only its acronym will remain. During the summit, AGRA president Agnes Kalibata, a former agriculture minister in Rwanda, insisted that the organisation has had some “huge successes”.

    Its critics appear to disagree. The Oakland Institute’s Mittal said:

    the new AGRA strategy unveiled at the forum shows that the institution is still centered on technological fixes and the promotion of agricultural inputs.

    She added that AGRA’s promoters and supporters “continue to cater to the interests of agrochemical corporations”, while ignoring the civil society call for change “towards truly sustainable food production on the continent”.

    In the age of climate breakdown, industrial giants are increasingly churning out what they call ‘climate-smart’ products, such as seeds that are resilient to drought. But continuing with the industrial model, which allows these giants to keep their stranglehold on the food system, isn’t climate-smart, it’s “climate-stupid agriculture”, Odongo said. And millions of African people want absolutely no part of it.

    Featured image via Rod Waddington / Flickr, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A possible indication that the Liz Truss government is already under pressure came with the announcement that the so-called Bill of Rights has been shelved. Though her government can’t blame that on the death of the queen. Because news of the bill’s fate came only one day after Truss took up the post of prime minister.

    Nevertheless, Truss’s war on UK workers remains unabated, and it’s being waged on a number of fronts.

    Anti-rights bill shelved

    On 7 September, the Law Gazette confirmed that the Tory flagship Bill of Rights (BoR) has been shelved.

    The Canary previously reported that, if enacted, the bill would replace the 1998 Human Rights Act. That act incorporates rights defined by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It’s worth noting that the ECHR isn’t affiliated with the EU but was set up by the UK and other countries to protect citizens against injustices by governments and other powerful institutions.

    The BoR would have made it easier to organise deportations and to further curb protests. It would also have made it more difficult to access justice regarding human rights breaches from overseas military/peacekeeping operations.

    However, there’s nothing to stop the government from transferring parts of the bill to other bills.

    Human rights NGO Liberty dubbed the bill the “Rights Removal Bill” and tweeted how more than 120 organisations opposed it:

    But Truss has other plans

    Truss has also signaled her intention to restrict workers’ rights by other means. It’s been described as a “bonfire” of rights that aims to destroy not just employment but also environmental protections. Laws and regulations carried over from the EU would be “evaluated on the basis of whether it supports UK growth or boosts investment”. They would then be replaced by new Tory laws. And those laws which do not get replaced would be ditched.

    Trades Union Congress (TUC) general secretary Frances O’Grady pointed out:

    Holiday pay, equal pay for women and men, safe limits on working hours and parental leave are just a few of the rights underpinned by retained EU law. These are vital workplace protections and rights – not nice-to-haves.

    Peter Stefanovic posted a video explaining that the Tories want to review the number of hours in a working week, as well as re-examine annual leave entitlements. Stefanovic adds how the government can get away with making these changes without having to resort to primary legislation:

    Limiting powers of trade unions

    Let us not forget that the eight-hour work day came about because unions fought for it. But as one 2004 article points out, an erosion of such rights has been taking place over many years.

    For example, the 1980 Employment Act:

    Abolished trade union recognition rights and restricted picket line numbers to only six.

    Made solidarity action illegal.

    Severely restricted the closed shop, which now had to be approved by 85% of the workforce.

    That was followed by many more acts, aimed at curbing union powers, which resulted in:

    a large decline in union membership, massive growth in the power of private firms and global capital which has lobbied (bribed) successive governments relentlessly.

    More restrictions on unions

    Also, as The Canary previously pointed out, it seems Truss is planning to bring in minimum service levels on critical infrastructure during strikes. In other words, the government will facilitate scab action, just as Margaret Thatcher did with the Nottinghamshire miners.

    Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union general secretary Mick Lynch said Truss:

    is proposing to make effective trade unionism illegal in Britain and to rob working people of a key democratic right. If these proposals become law, there will be the biggest resistance mounted by the entire trade union movement, rivalling the General Strike of 1926, the Suffragettes and Chartism.

    Kwasi Kwarteng, now chancellor, boasted in July how the wheels had already been set in motion with regard to these changes:

    Truss also wants to impose other restrictions, such as increasing the minimum notice period for strike action from two to four weeks.

    Legal protections under threat

    All these moves by the Tories appear at odds with protections provided by international bodies, to which the UK is signatory.

    A 2012 report on trade union rights, published by the Institute of Employment Rights, lists these international laws and organisations. They include: the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour Organisation, the European Social Charter, the Council of Europe’s Social Charter, and Articles 12 and 28 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

    For example, the latter states:

    The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has made clear that Article 11 includes the right to bargain collectively, the right to strike, the right of unions to decide their own constitutions and membership, and the right of members not to be penalised for seeking union support.

    But the Tories are threatening to pull the UK out of the ECHR, which is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights. Should that happen, it will make it easier for Truss to dismantle more rights. And should Truss take the UK out of the ECHR, that move could pave the way for other pull-outs.

    The richest benefit most

    On another front of the class war, Truss is happy to continue Tory tradition by giving to the rich and taking from the poor.

    For example, her reduction in national insurance from 13.25% to 12% disproportionately benefits the wealthy and provides hardly any extra money for the poor. Specifically, based on Institute for Fiscal Studies figures, highest earners will be 250 times better off from this reduction than the poorest. Those at the bottom will get a miserly £7.66 extra a year, while the richest 10% of people will get an average of £1,801.

    Truss told BBC presenter Laura Kuenssberg that this approach was “fair”:

    Pensioners, including working pensioners over pension age, don’t pay national insurance. So they will not gain any benefit from the Tories’ cut.

    UK energy bills freeze is a rip off

    Then there’s the issue of soaring energy bills. Truss is adamant she will borrow whatever money is needed to freeze the energy bills at around £2.5k. That’s around £500 more than the current price cap of £1,971.

    The Canary’s Steve Topple says Truss’s plan will likely lead to thousands of deaths and more poverty:

    Even with Liz Truss’s plan to change the October energy price cap to £2,500, this is still an increase of over £1,200 (or 95%) in 14 months. For context, in winter 2019/2020 around 8,500 people died due to cold homes. This was when the energy price cap was under £1,200. Deaths this winter are likely to be far higher, with poverty also set to rocket.

    As for the tens of billions to pay for the freeze, Truss made it clear she doesn’t want to pass that on to the energy companies via, say, a windfall tax. Instead, she’s gifting billions to those companies on top of the billions of profits they already make. And it’s taxpayers who will pay over decades for the cost of that gift.

    Truss also stated that the freeze on bills will last for two years. What happens after that is unclear.

    Howard Beckett of Unite says that, compared to certain other countries, we’re being ripped off:

    Resistance

    Meanwhile, strikes by unions have been put on hold following the queen’s death. It’s assumed current strikes and ballots will resume after the pause. They include industrial action by the Communication Workers Union, the Criminal Bar Association, RMT and Unite. The Fire Brigades Union is to ballot its members on strike action, as is the Royal College of Nursing.

    CWU general secretary Dave Ward unequivocally stated that the trade union movement will fight back should the Truss government attempt to “stamp out the working class movement”:

    RMT head Mick Lynch said that if Truss proceeds with her plans to curb workers rights, he would give his support to a general strike. So it looks like Truss will be under even more pressure.

    What we are witnessing is no less than a class war that’s being waged by the few against the many. Now is the time to organise – and fight back.

    Featured image via Flickr / Gareth Milner cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As of Tuesday, Britain has a new prime minister, Liz Truss.

    Forty-seven-year-old Truss served as Boris Johnson’s foreign secretary, establishing a reputation for speaking off the cuff and for being uber-hawkish vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine. In the first week of the war, she publicly voiced her support for British citizens choosing to go and fight on behalf of Ukraine. When Johnson was forced out in July, following months of scandals, his foreign secretary promptly entered the Conservative Party leadership contest, which consisted of a series of votes by members of Parliament (MPs) aimed at winnowing the number of contenders down to two, and then a six-week contest among those two to win the support of a majority of the roughly 160,000 Conservative Party members around the country.

    Although Truss came second in the Parliamentary contest to Rishi Sunak, it was clear from late July onward that she was the more popular of the two among the party’s voters. She pushed a traditional conservative agenda of cutting regulations and slashing taxes — despite the precarious state of the U.K.’s economy, the pressures on the pound, and despite the clear need for massive public expenditures to stave off wholesale misery resulting from double-digit inflation, soaring energy prices and the accelerating climate crisis. And she made no apologies for policies that favored the wealthy.

    Truss also went out of her way to channel Britain’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, who remains as iconic among the Tory Party base as Ronald Reagan is for Republicans in the U.S. Truss has studied Thatcher’s body language, has adopted her dress style — as Twitter users were quick to point out — and has reached for many of the same rhetorical tools. Yet, style notwithstanding, she has nowhere near the ideological consistency or heft of a Thatcher.

    Truss was once a Liberal Democrat — she was president of the Oxford student Lib Dems while studying for a degree in politics, philosophy and economics at Merton College in the mid-1990s. (The Liberal Democrats are the third party in the U.K., and while they are progressive on issues such as the environment and opposing Brexit, it was their decision to form a coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 that ushered in more than a decade of Conservative Party rule.) She was also formerly an opponent of Brexit. Her parents were left-wing anti-nuclear protesters. As a student, she gave speeches against the monarchy.

    Perhaps in an effort to prove her bona fides as a conservative to a hard-right base, during the leadership election campaign this summer she marketed herself as even more willing to burn bridges with Europe than was Johnson (if that is possible). Seeking to shore up her support among Conservatives (which is about as representative of the U.K. as a whole as are the most rabid of GOP primary voters in the U.S. as a whole), she came out in favor of a wholesale legislative dismantling of Britain’s remaining EU-era regulations by 2023. She also opined, sanctimoniously, that the “jury is still out” on whether French President Emmanuel Macron is a friend or foe to the British; as if it were the French who had exiled Britain from Europe, rather than Britain inflicting a grievous wound on itself through the entirely unnecessary Brexit process.

    By the time the votes were counted and the verdict delivered on Tuesday, it was clear that Truss had won. Of the just over 140,000 party members who returned their ballots, 81,326 threw their support to the erstwhile foreign secretary.

    It’s possible that Truss will confound her critics and become as formidable a party leader and prime minister as was Thatcher. It’s possible that, like Thatcher, she will buck predictions and end up using the looming economic crisis and the escalating industrial action initiated by trade unions to her advantage, crafting a new electoral coalition capable of transforming the country and winning a series of elections over the next decade-plus.

    Possible, but not likely.

    Truss is inheriting an almighty mess, not from a Labour or Lib Dem government, but from her own party, and from a discredited prime minister who abused his power shamelessly throughout his time at 10 Downing Street. On Tuesday, a day before the monarch’s health dramatically deteriorated, she visited an already ailing Queen Elizabeth in Balmoral to be formally invited by the head of state to form the next government. She then returned to London as the new prime minister, and set to work inviting MPs to join her new cabinet. So far, it looks like she will rely fairly heavily on many of Johnson’s ministers, especially those who represent the hard-right of the party. Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng looks set to become chancellor of the exchequer; Education Secretary James Cleverly is going to be made foreign secretary; and Attorney General Suella Braverman, who during the leadership election campaign did her utmost best to channel Donald Trump, is apparently going to be the new home secretary. As the Times of India noted, none of the top cabinet positions will be white men, marking a symbolic changing of the guard, even if the substance of the policies promoted remains as radical-right as ever.

    Truss and her new team will, at speed, have to find ways to bring inflation under control, and to find ways to subsidize the millions of families at risk of destitution due to high heating bills this coming winter.

    In one of her first official acts, the new prime minister imposed a sweeping price freeze on energy, a move long supported by the opposition Labour Party. It’s a vital concession to the realities of Europe’s economic war with Russia; yet her economic team seems to believe they can pay the tens of billions of dollars that this will cost the Treasury by borrowing rather than by raising taxes or even maintaining taxes for the wealthy and for corporations at their current levels — this despite the pound’s swoon in recent weeks against the U.S. dollar. She also announced plans to ramp up drilling for oil and for natural gas in the North Sea, and to increase fracking within the U.K.

    Unlike the German plan announced this week to spend 65 billion euros to curb energy prices and mitigate cost of living increases for pensioners and other vulnerable sectors of the population, Truss’s plan isn’t an across-the-board effort to rein in the profits of energy corporations and to redistribute wealth to poorer residents; rather, it looks to be a one-off intervention — essentially a subsidy to consumers — that won’t address the fundamental problems at play during this inflationary crisis.

    The day Truss was declared the winner in the Conservative Party members’ popularity contest, polls showed her party was trailing the Labour Party by close to 9 percent.

    It will take all of Truss’s shape-shifting talents, and then some, to turn around the election ship for the Conservatives over the coming two years, which is the time span that Truss has before the next general election must be called. In the meantime, as the U.K. grapples with a deepening economic crisis, all of the new prime minister’s public statements suggest that the country is going to be dragged ever-further rightward into a deregulated, anti-union, Brexit-hued future.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Not long ago Britain’s large trade unions seemed to be waking up, finally. There was even talk of a general strike. The RMT’s Mick Lynch was making fools of sneering, posh journalists. And strikers were enjoying huge public support.

    Yesterday the Queen died in Balmoral. And the impact upon the left’s own ruling class was almost immediate. Union after union cancelled planned strikes. The Trade Union Congress (TUC) cancelled its (literal) congress.

    Even left-wing MPs in the Labour Party took to grief-posting about a woman of astonishing inherited wealth:

    But one Twitter user captured the tone exceptionally well:

    Embarrassing

    Embarrassing to say the least. At worst, this sudden urge to back what is self-evidently a national unity project could derail or diminish the entire movement. But it also speaks to the deep conservatism of both the Labour Party and the mainstream unions. In truth this is them doing what they do.

    And there is more to come. The mourning period will bleed into the Remembrance period and then into December’s World Cup. Three courses of nationalist bread and circus.

    It is one thing to adapt comms and strategy to the death of a figure like the Queen. Doubtless there are many people in trade unions whose politics extend to monarchism. And these decisions might well keep the press off your back. But to simply pause the struggle in a period of resurgence seems like capitulation.

    And let’s be clear, capitalists certainly won’t be taking a break for the coronation. And it’s not a truce if only one side holds fire.

    Cancelled

    Some people have correctly pointed out that the activities which have been cancelled are those which benefit workers. Football, for example, as well as strikes. Work, of course, will continue.

    Strikes, one Twitter user pointed out, are not meant to be exercises in deference to unelected power. They are by nature subversive:

    Some found a degree of humour in the decision:

    Class war

    The weird outpourings and the decisions to stop industrial action – even as the October energy price hike draws near – are instructive. The mainstream unions and Labour politicians are part of the system. They have good spells, but they startle easily. Workers should never lose sight of these limitations.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Dan Marsh, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY-SA 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The police killing of Chris Kaba has been pushed out of the headlines by the death of the queen, Elizabeth Windsor. His life of 24 years was no less valuable than hers of 96, despite what the state and the media lead us to believe. Police killed Chris in south London after a car chase. However his death cannot be viewed in isolation. Because ultimately, the state itself has his blood and that of tens of thousands of others on its hands. And it’s the state that is also trying to make us forget.

    Chris Kaba: say his name

    Police shot Chris in Streatham, south London, on Monday 5 September. He wasn’t carrying a firearm. BBC News reported the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s (IOPC) excuse for Kaba’s death as being that the car he was driving was linked to a previous firearms incident. Chris’s father, Prosper, said his son’s killing was “racist” and “criminal”. It’s hard to disagree with him.

    The death of Chris is in many respects like the killings of Oladeji Omishore, Mark Duggan, Dalian Atkinson, Trevor Smith, Joy Gardner and countless others, including when the victims were in contact with, or detained by, police. That is, the entrenched structural and institutional racism that pervades UK policing meant police killed them because they were Black and Brown people. It’s also likely some of the officers involved were racist as well.

    Ultimately, the state can only function through its continual killing of Black and Brown people.

    Contemporary racism

    The state would prefer us to have a sanitised version of Chris’s death. It would suit its agenda. But the historical and social context of Kaba’s death, and the killings of countless others, is crucial. Professor Farzana Shain wrote in 2020 that:

    Cultural theorists in the UK have… employed the term the ‘new racism’ to describe the phenomenon that emerged in public and political discourse from the 1970s. This new ‘cultural racism’ did not entirely displace the racism based on biologically defined race hierarchies or the doctrine of racial typology, that was created to justify the exploitation and plunder of colonial lands during the period of European expansion. However, the ‘new racism’ has become the more dominant, acceptable and therefore embedded form of racism in the UK…

    Ultimately, this ‘new racism’ of course stemmed from, and was emboldened by, the colonial racism that had existed for centuries. But as always, the state creates and uses this along with the ‘new racism’ for its own agendas.

    As Shain wrote:

    Notions of ‘cultural difference’ enabled successive UK governments from the 1950s and 1960s to pursue racialised containment strategies. This was primarily through a series of restrictive immigration controls but also through education policies such as Prevent… and most recently ‘British Values’ education… these policies have enabled governments to manage and contain dangerous ‘others’ – the categories of people that are most often, the most affected by the fall out of economic and political change but are at the same time, instrumentalised as scapegoats for the negative impacts of this social change.

    All this means that not only is society toxified by this ‘new racism’, but the state still directly employs colonial-era racist tactics for the control and maintenance of Black and Brown people.

    Kaba, Omishore, Gardner and other Black and Brown people killed by the police have been these “dangerous others” and “instrumentalised” “scapegoats” Shain refers to. Chris was shot because of systemic racism that labelled him as “other”. As The Canary‘s Maryam Jameela recently alluded to, issues of class and socioeconomic status are also at play with the state’s agendas. The system forces more Black and Brown people into poverty than nearly any other demographic. So, on top of the racist othering you have the state viewing them as expendable to capitalism too.

    State-sanctioned killing of disabled people

    The state has killed chronically ill and disabled people in their tens of thousands. The UK’s social security body, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has subjected claimants to, according to the UN, “grave” and “systematic” human rights violations – leading to a “human catastrophe”. In the 2010s, at least 35,000 chronically ill and disabled people died on the DWP’s watch. At least 600 people killed themselves after the department removed their social security. The day before Windsor’s death, the website Disability News Service (DNS) reported on Sophia Yuferev, a claimant who starved to death in the UK after the DWP stopped their social security.

    Moreover, as Jameela previously wrote, the state further others Black and Brown people too. It disproportionately subjects them to poverty and institutionalises them in social security. Yet the data excludes Black and Brown people from research on anything other than ethnicity. As Jameela wrote:

    It is not an accident of practicalities in data that disabled People of Colour are missed out. It is a manifestation of white supremacist and racist standards in society.

    So, like the deaths of Chris and others, the deaths of social security claimants are not some accident. The chair of the UN committee said the UK government, DWP and the media “have some responsibility” for society seeing disabled people as “parasites, living on social benefits… [living on] the taxes of other people”. And she said these “very, very dangerous” attitudes could “lead to violence… if not, to killings and euthanasia”. 

    Eugenics: old prejudice reimagined

    Disability politics and anti-race politics are, clearly, one and the same. Therefore, the state killing chronically ill and disabled people stems from a similar ‘othering’ to that of Black and Brown people. As the website Drake Music wrote, the late 19th and first half of the 20th century:

    Eugenics Model is the framework that came to characterise disability as we understand it today in the modern, Western world. The base logic of the theory of eugenics is that people are either fit or unfit. To be unfit is to be genetically inferior. The theory posits that efforts should be made to decrease all elements of genetic inferiority from the human race until they no longer exist. This categorisation laid the foundations for how we understand people to be disabled or non-disabled today.

    Eugenics is very much colonial. So, much like the ‘new racism’ the state’s current othering of social security claimants as parasites stems from much older prejudice – while being utilised to inflict suffering and sometimes death on its victims today. Furthermore, like the police officer who killed Chris Kaba, DWP staff who cut people’s social security, leading to their deaths, is a direct result of the state’s othering.

    The state sanctioned Kaba’s death. Don’t allow it to make us forget.

    It seems perverse that in the week when the state’s police force killed yet another Black person, that same state is now encouraging us to memorialise its now-dead figurehead. But that is, of course, how othering and scapegoating works. The state cannot function without the complicity of its citizens. That includes often unconscious, but sometimes conscious, social policing. It matters who we grieve and how, and at The Canary we’re grieving Chris Kaba, Sophia Yuferev, and the countless others who have been killed by the state. We refuse to be distracted by the bread and circuses offered up to us.

    To keep Kaba, Yuferev and every other person they’ve killed to the back of our minds, the state will attempt to make us forget about, and not question, these deaths. It may be encouraging us to focus on Windsor. But, Chris’s death is a tragedy. We must make sure that he is not forgotten – otherwise the state will continue to get away with murdering at will.

    Featured image via Chris Kaba’s family

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The UK government’s gene editing proposals could open the door to catastrophic developments in the dairy industry.

    In May 2022, the government introduced a new gene-editing Bill into the UK parliament, named the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. The bill is currently making its way through the House of Commons.

    The current proposals only relate to the gene-editing of plants, but with the stated intention of it being a step on the way to allowing gene-editing in animals.

    The bill is being proposed despite a 2021 survey by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which showed widespread support for regulation of the technology.

    The proposed Bill would put the UK out of step with the EU, where gene-editing faces tight regulations (although industry lobbyists want less restrictions there, too).

    Anti-capitalist research group Corporate Watch examines what gene editing could mean for dairy cows, as part of a new report entitled ‘Dystopian Farm, the UK dairy industry and its technofixes’

    Genetic modification by another name

    There is a long history of resistance to the use of genetic modification (GM) in UK farming. Since the early 1990s a wide range of people in the UK have been involved in diverse campaigns that involved pulling up GM crops, and blockading supermarkets and offices.

    Ten years ago Corporate Watch wrote:

    A combination of widespread public opposition and direct action has meant that over the last decade the GM industry has remained on the backfoot in the UK. However, with the recent changes at EU level, it may once again become possible for a corporate onslaught.

    Now Corporate Watch explains how the government’s new gene-editing proposals are a way to introduce a form of genetic modification through the backdoor:

    Biotech lobbyists have sought to distinguish gene editing from GM in a bid to lose GM’s heavy baggage. Genetic Modification involves taking genes from certain organisms and inserting them into the DNA of another. Gene editing involves adding, removing or modifying the genes of organisms, but generally not mixing the genetic material of different species. However, many environmentalists do not distinguish between the two and believe that gene editing should be seen as a new technique of genetic modification (“new GM”).

    Corporate Watch names four major research sites where gene editing is being developed. They are Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire (which also has sites in Devon and Suffolk), the John Innes centre in Norwich, and the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh.

    It seems like the industry has been on a public relations offensive, with gene-editing being touted in the mainstream and industry press as a solution to everything from old age to the cost of living crisis.

    A dangerous new technology

    Environmental campaigners argue that gene editing causes unexpected mutations, and increases the level of toxins in plants.

    It’s even more dangerous when the technology is applied to animals. When a US company used gene editing to produce hornless dairy cattle, it unintentionally introduced genes from another species, making the cattle resistant to three antibiotics. It is clear that mistakes often happen when companies try to harness this technology, and that the corporations involved are resistant to scrutiny. It is feasible that the use of gene editing could result in new strands of disease-carrying bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

    Campaigners also argue that gene editing will result in increased uniformity in plants and animals, and, as a result, their natural resilience to disease will decrease.

    Corporate Watch argues:

    Gene editing will only take us further down the disastrous path of uniformity with the added risks involved in manipulating DNA itself.

    A technofix to a problem caused by capitalism

    The idea of creating gene edited hornless cattle is being marketed on the basis that it will do away with the need to physically remove the horns from cattle. Cattle currently undergo a dangerous and painful removal of their horns called ‘disbudding‘. The reason given for removing the horns from cattle is to prevent the cows from injuring themselves or others. However, the only reason these injuries occur is because of the cramped conditions the animals are kept in. Thus, creating gene edited hornless cattle is a technofix to a problem that has been created by modern industrial farming. According to Corporate Watch:

    GE hornless cattle are promoted as a solution to the hassle and pain of disbudding. But that “need” is entirely the product of a certain farming culture, and in many parts of the world farmers do not remove the animals’ horns at all.

    Serving capitalist interests

    Corporate Watch’s report highlights how this new technology is being promoted in the service of corporate profit, rather than the welfare of the natural world. The government’s deregulation of gene editing isn’t motivated by our best interests, or the interests of dairy cows. It’s motivated by capitalism pure and simple, and should be resisted.

    You can read Corporate Watch’s full report here.

    Tom Anderson is a part of the Corporate Watch cooperative.

    Featured Image via MRC TémiscamingueUnsplash, resized to 770px x 403px

    By Tom Anderson

  • Queen Elizabeth the second is dead at 96. And in the wake of her passing, dissent and humour have been cancelled. That’s right, there is no platform for critical voices. Perhaps until the new king, Charles III, says there is. No space is afforded for humour in the bombardment of news coverage by weepy BBC hacks. And there is nothing to be said at all about corporate statements of grief from the likes of Greggs, Ann Summers and Screwfix.

    Twitter, however, has been giving many of us life while news presenters and social media teams have been doing serious face. Because while the top-down view is that the Queen was and remains as a saint, and the monarchy is at virtually all times above reproach, not everyone is a fan. As is their right.

    Yas queen!

    Some responses were minimalist in their response to the passing of the hereditary monarch. No doubt due to being overcome with grief:

    Rapper Lowkey showed how important it was to reframe the memorialising:

    Activist and comedian Aamer Rahman picked up on those saying the leader of the commonwealth’s passing should only receive solemn reactions:

    After all, what could the countries below all have in common? Colonialism, perhaps?

    The demographics of mourners doesn’t appear to be an accident either, as The Canary’s Afroze Fatima Zaidi noted:

    Actual adults took to posting a picture of the Queen hand-in-hand with Paddington Bear, being followed to heaven by a corgi draped in bunting. This naturally led to fears Paddington was the Grim Reaper:

    While one Celtic fan stumbled across what must be a frontrunner for most bizarre spectacle so far – a veteran downing a glass of booze before intensely saluting his phone camera:

    Given the overblown responses, it’s no surprise people who aren’t fans of inheriting sovereigns turned to people who might have a more balanced take:

    Respect? For who?

    Cloud queen?

    Others were curious about exactly what had been postponed in the period of mourning:

    Some Twitter users questioned claims in the Daily Mail that the Queen had appeared as a cloud:

    There were plenty more observations which might have been tongue-in-cheek but also made some serious points:

    Finger waggers were ready on Twitter to warn people that it wasn’t the time to discuss colonialism or justice. Mic Wright had a ready answer:

    Enforced seriousness

    The truth is that monarchs and other powerful figures have always been mocked and rightly so. The mainstream media of Britain will reflect the views of the ruling class throughout this period. But their opinion is not the only legitimate one.

    While the monarchy remains popular, largely because it is misunderstood as decorative and benign, other views also exist. And as long as there is unaccountable power, it will be subject to humour as a form of resistance. There’s truth to be found in that humour.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Elli Gerra, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

  • A BBC News presenter made an “awful” and “depraved” statement during live coverage of the queen, Elizabeth Windsor – even before her death. And it shows that the state broadcaster’s subservience to its overlords is as forelock-tuggingly terrible as ever.

    “Insignificant” plebs vs the queen

    As Evolve Politics‘ Tom D. Rogers tweeted, during the reporting on Windsor’s health before her death on Thursday 8 September, BBC host Clive Myrie said the current energy price crisis was “insignificant” compared to the queen’s health:

    BBC reporter Damian Grammaticas clearly realised the error in Myrie’s comment – as he corrected him, saying Windsor’s health was ‘overshadowing’ the energy crisis. And to many people, the sheer awfulness of Myrie’s comment would have been obvious too.

    Even with Liz Truss’s plan to change the October energy price cap to £2,500, this is still an increase of over £1,200 (or 95%) in 14 months. For context, in winter 2019/2020 around 8,500 people died due to cold homes. This was when the energy price cap was under £1,200. Deaths this winter are likely to be far higher, with poverty also set to rocket. Yet Myrie thought it appropriate to imply Windsor’s death was more important. As the Prole Star said:

    But it wasn’t just BBC News UK fawning to the dead monarch. BBC News Africa showed colonialism wasn’t really over, as it whitewashed Windsor’s role as the head of the imperialist British state – calling it a “long-standing relationship”:

    It’s worth remembering that on Windsor’s watch, the British state was still torturing Black people in Africa when they tried to get independence from us.

    The queen and the BBC: feudal hangover

    This kind of subservience and forelock-tugging from the state broadcaster is nothing new. Royal reporter Nicholas Witchell, who’s already come under fire for his coverage of Windsor’s death, previously disgraced himself with appalling reporting on her alleged child abuser son Andrew. The broadcaster’s coverage of Philip Windsor’s death was equally dire. Ultimately, though, as The Canary previously wrote, the BBC has been little more than a state mouthpiece since its inception.

    Myrie openly framing the late, unelected, hereditary monarch’s health as more important than the rest of ours is low even by the standards of the BBC‘s already stunted bar. Of course, we can expect weeks more of this kind of dross. But ultimately, it’s appalling that in 2022 the state broadcaster is continuing to enact some kind of feudal hierarchy when it’s supposed to represent us, the public. Our lives are no less important than Windsor’s was. The BBC would do well to remember that.

    Featured image via Left Unite – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • After weeks of faintly disguised dog whistles during the Tory leadership election, Liz Truss is straight out of the gate with her first pointlessly vindictive bit of transphobia. Recently, VICE revealed that two anonymous whistleblowers informed them that Truss was attempting to “pause or prevent” the planned Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.

    With this reform, a trans person would be able to obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) through a self-ID process – a declaration that they intend to live as their acquired gender. This would follow a period of living as their gender for three months, and the GRC would be granted after another three-month “reflection period”.

    ‘Intrusive, medicalised and bureaucratic’

    Under the main pathway of the current system for the whole UK, a trans person has to provide letters from two different doctors or psychologists, including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Along with this, they also need one piece of evidence from roughly every three months of the last two years to show that they have been living as their gender.

    This process has been criticised as being unnecessarily convoluted and demeaning. Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government of Scotland, said:

    Trans men and women are among the most stigmatised in our society and many find the current system for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate to be intrusive, medicalised and bureaucratic.

    This Bill does not introduce any new rights for trans people. It is about simplifying and improving the process for a trans person to gain legal recognition, which has been a right for 18 years.

    A GRC affects only a trans person’s ability to update their birth certificate, get married, and die without being misgendered. Scotland’s proposed bill would simply make it easier to obtain the certificate.

    Undoing equality

    The modesty of the proposed reform makes it all the more galling that Truss is attempting to prevent it. One whistleblower told VICE that they were:

     concerned that all of Scotland’s great trans equality work will be undone when Liz Truss steps into Number Ten.

    Scotland is already steps ahead of the rest of the UK on trans rights. For example, Holyrood’s equal opportunities committee voted to remove the spousal veto on gender recognition back in 2014. This formerly allowed a trans person’s spouse to block their receipt of a GRC. It is deeply disappointing that Truss would seek to hamper further steps to advance trans equality north of the border.

    On Twitter, the Scottish Trans Alliance laid out further concerns with the news:

    It is certainly true that we are at a volatile time for the union of Scotland and the UK. With a potential re-run of the independence referendum on the horizon, Truss’ heavy-handed meddling in devolved Scottish legislation could go down poorly. This is especially true when the Bill has support from the SNP, Greens, Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrats – four of Scotland’s five main political parties.

    Vice signalling

    As for Truss’ motivations for this potentially unpopular action, one whistleblower claimed that:

    She is furious about what Scotland pushing ahead with this plan could do to women’s rights in the rest of the UK, but she is concerned for Scotland too.

    However, it is unclear what these potential ramifications could possibly be. The GRC process is already in place, and the UK already has self-ID for most forms of ID such as passports, driving licences, and even doctor’s records. None of this would change.

    Instead, Truss is simply signalling to her transphobic fanbase what her intentions are for her time as PM. She intends to make trans people’s lives that bit harder, to make them feel that bit more unwelcome, even if that involves sticking her oar into Scottish affairs.

    Featured Image by Wikimedia Commons/Simon Dawson via Open Government Licence 3.0, resized to 770×403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Fracking in the UK could start up again after the new government said it would end a ban. The controversial gas extraction method involved shattering shale formations to pump out gas trapped underground. The move comes after Jacob Rees-Mogg, a climate change sceptic, was appointed as energy minister.

    News that the 2019 ban would be lifted came Wednesday night via a Telegraph editor:

    Mogg’s climate views

    Rees-Mogg, who has never run a government department, is an outspoken critic of mainstream climate discourse. Dave Timms from Friends of the Earth said:

    Putting someone who recently suggested ‘every last drop’ of oil should be extracted from the North Sea in charge of energy policy is deeply worrying for anyone concerned about the deepening climate emergency, solving the cost-of-living crisis and keeping our fuel bills down for good.

    Timms added:

    Extracting more fossil fuels is a false solution to the energy crisis. It’s our failure to end our reliance on gas and oil that’s sent energy bills soaring and left us teetering on the brink of catastrophic climate change.

    Rees-Mogg is himself an investor in coal and oil and has questioned the key scientific findings on climate change. As he was appointed on 6 September, he pledged to push for growth in his new role:

    Internal dissent

    Even some high-profile Tories have questioned the logic of fracking, which in the UK was focused largely on rural areas before the ban. Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng’s comments on fracking from April 2022 circulated widely following the news:

    In a rare moment of opposition, Labour leader Keir Starmer quoted Kwarteng’s comment during PMQs Thursday:

    Fracking hell

    Jacob Rees-Mogg has been appointed to a critical office at a critical time. The energy crisis, cost of living, and climate crises which are his new brief require a serious, scientifically grounded approach. Yet of all the Tories – and the bar is very low – Rees-Mogg might be the least suited to addressing these critical issues.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Us Geological Survey, cropped to 770 x 403. 

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Liz Truss’ new cabinet has been praised, by fuckwits for being a diverse group of people. Some of the prominent roles have been given to Black and brown people. Suella Braverman is the home secretary, James Cleverly is the foreign secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng is the chancellor, and Kemi Badenoch is the international trade secretary.

    The racial literacy in this country is so poor that the usual suspects have been calling this a win for diversity. However, diversity is not a metric to measure the opportunities for the participation of people of colour in society. Getting Black and brown faces into positions of power means very little if those same people don’t use their power to make life better for the most vulnerable people in society.

    Class issue

    This may come as a surprise to some, but as well as having a race that isn’t white, Black and brown people also have class identities. One social media user pointed out how important class is to understanding “diversity”:

    As Labour MP Ian Lavery said:

    What’s the point in trumpeting diversity when all of these people are rich and/or privately educated? They have the kind of opportunities that most poor Black and brown people couldn’t even dream of. They’re in these positions of power because they’ve chosen to act in the interests of power. This is all the more grating given that the praise heaped on this ‘diverse’ cabinet is based on fucked-up understandings of what representation and diversity are. Getting brown faces in at the top does nothing for the most vulnerable people in our society. In which case, what is the fucking point of this so-called ‘diversity’?

    Skin folk are not kin folk

    People who have patiently been pointing out this very thing for a long time are having to do so again:

    It’s more than a little frustrating to deal with the same ill-thought-out positions again and again:

    Academic Roger Luckhurst had a more tongue-in-cheek (if accurate) take on the matter:

    The policies matter, not the people

    Let’s take a look at their policies, then.

    Suella Braverman is said to be even more right wing than Priti Patel. She’s expected to re-attempt deportations to Rwanda by sidestepping the European Convention on Human Rights. She’s criticised the civil service for being too “woke.” In a pattern the rest of her colleagues seem to be following, she’s set herself out as a transphobe via her insistence that schools shouldn’t comply with the use of a student’s pronouns if those pronouns don’t align with their gender assigned at birth.

    Cleverly has a military background and, according to the site They Work For You, has never voted to allow same-sex marriage, generally voted against laws that promote equal rights, and has consistently voted for the mass surveillance of people’s communications. Declassified UK highlighted Cleverly’s record on Palestine:

    Kwasi Kwarteng has been described as Liz Truss’ “ideological soulmate“, and co-authored a book which the Guardian reported as a:

    controversial libertarian tract [that] railed against a “bloated state, high taxes and excessive regulation” – complaints that Truss made a cornerstone of her Tory leadership campaign, neglecting her party’s 12 years in power.

    Declassified UK also picked up on Kwarteng’s unsavoury connections:

    Kemi Badenoch, meanwhile, has made a name for herself in the right wing-manufactured culture war by railing against critical race theory. She also attacked journalist Nadine White, who is the first dedicated race correspondent at the Independent. 

    Not exactly a progressive bunch, are they?

    Perspective

    Back in 2020, when we were taken on this same merryground of celebrating diversity, rapper Lowkey tweeted:

    Politics has become solely about optics. It’s not about building infrastructures that support vulnerable people. It’s not about creating a healthcare system that functions equitably. It’s not about providing safety nets of welfare and a universal basic income. It’s about the richest people hoarding power at the top of our political system. It doesn’t matter to these people if folks are freezing and starving to death in their homes, or if transphobic hate crimes are on the rise, or if anti-Blackness is flourishing.

    If you’re stupid enough to fall for the lie that is diversity alongside no other metric, you deserve what you get. The rest of us are busy trying to survive the mess these people keep creating.

    Featured image by Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew, Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew, Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew, Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew via CC 3.0, resized to 770×403

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.